curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: CURATOR-217?
Date Wed, 26 Aug 2015 00:41:56 GMT
I've had a bit of a look at it and the test seems very fragile. It already
has a bit of built in margin for error, but it relies on the consumers
being able to consume messages off the queue faster than they are produced.
If more than 20 messages end up on the queue at any time then test test
fails.

Anyway, I will raise a JIRA and we can discuss there.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Mike,
> On master. I'll have a bit of a look into it and let you know. I think
> that it's a race condition based on how the test is structured.
> cheers
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Is this on 3.0 or master? Can you create a JIRA with some log output?
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Is anyone seeing fairly consistent failure of the
>> >
>> > TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti:184
>> >
>> > test? When I run from inside eclipse in isolation it seems ok, but
>> running
>> > a 'mvn test' seems to fail on this test with some consistency. The
>> changes
>> > for CURATOR-167 certainly haven't caused this to happen.
>> > cheers
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Cameron McKenzie <
>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thanks Scott,
>> > > I will merge into master.
>> > > cheers
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Yep, that looks perfect.  Is CURATOR-167 done?  If so, we can just
>> > >> fast-foward merge it into master now.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Cameron McKenzie <
>> > >> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Thanks Scott,
>> > >> > Done, would you mind checking the origin/CURATOR-167 to make sure
>> > that I
>> > >> > haven't done anything wrong! I have done a git pull on a different
>> > >> machine
>> > >> > and it seems to be ok.
>> > >> > cheers
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com
>> >
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > You just force push your branch.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > If it's your feature branch, and you know you have it in
a good
>> > state
>> > >> > > locally, you can just force push the remote branch into the
same
>> > >> state.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > You'd never want to do that to master, a release branch,
or
>> someone
>> > >> > else's
>> > >> > > branch.
>> > >> > > On Aug 24, 2015 11:15 PM, "Cameron McKenzie" <
>> > mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>> > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > Thanks Mike,
>> > >> > > > That was a good description. The CURATOR-167 branch
is
>> definitely
>> > >> there
>> > >> > > as
>> > >> > > > it's been a pull request for the last few months. So,
I'll
>> await
>> > >> your
>> > >> > > > thoughts in the morning. Alternatively, I can just merge
master
>> > >> instead
>> > >> > > of
>> > >> > > > rebasing it.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Mike Drob <
>> madrob@cloudera.com>
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > > > Yea, that's the big downside with rebasing, is
that remotes
>> > don't
>> > >> > > exactly
>> > >> > > > > keep up with the history. I'm going to try to explain
this as
>> > best
>> > >> > as I
>> > >> > > > > can, but usually I point people towards this excellent
"Git
>> for
>> > >> Ages
>> > >> > 4
>> > >> > > > and
>> > >> > > > > Up" video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ffBJ4sVUb4
- he
>> > talks
>> > >> > about
>> > >> > > > > rebases at the very very end, around the 1:30 mark.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > Essentially, your current version of the branch
does not have
>> > the
>> > >> > > remote
>> > >> > > > > version of the as an ancestor. Which is correct,
when you did
>> > the
>> > >> > > rebase,
>> > >> > > > > you wrote a new commit lineage.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > I didn't realize that there was already a CURATOR-167
branch
>> > >> pushed
>> > >> > to
>> > >> > > > the
>> > >> > > > > repo when I gave you those steps. I'll have to
look at what's
>> > >> going
>> > >> > on
>> > >> > > > with
>> > >> > > > > a fresh set of eyes in the morning.
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Cameron McKenzie
<
>> > >> > > > mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>> > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > I just tried this and obviously I'm doing
something wrong.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > git checkout CURATOR-167
>> > >> > > > > > git pull
>> > >> > > > > > git rebase -i origin/master
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > #This gives me a dialog with one commit with
pick
>> > >> > > > > > Save and exit
>> > >> > > > > > #This gives a merge conflict and leaves me
in a detached
>> head
>> > >> state
>> > >> > > (I
>> > >> > > > > > presume this is ok).
>> > >> > > > > > Fix up the merge conflict
>> > >> > > > > > git rebase --continue
>> > >> > > > > > #This gives me a dialog to commit the changes
>> > >> > > > > > Save and exit
>> > >> > > > > > #Everything seems fine at this point. Builds
ok, tests run
>> ok.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > git push
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >  ! [rejected]        CURATOR-167 -> CURATOR-167
>> > >> (non-fast-forward)
>> > >> > > > > > error: failed to push some refs to '
>> > >> > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/curator.git'
>> > >> > > > > > hint: Updates were rejected because the tip
of your current
>> > >> branch
>> > >> > is
>> > >> > > > > > behind
>> > >> > > > > > hint: its remote counterpart. Integrate the
remote changes
>> > (e.g.
>> > >> > > > > > hint: 'git pull ...') before pushing again.
>> > >> > > > > > hint: See the 'Note about fast-forwards' in
'git push
>> --help'
>> > >> for
>> > >> > > > > details.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > There have been no changes on the branch since
I did the
>> pull
>> > >> > before
>> > >> > > > the
>> > >> > > > > > rebase.
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > Any ideas?
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Cameron McKenzie
<
>> > >> > > > > mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>> > >> > > > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > Thanks Mike,
>> > >> > > > > > > Will give it a spin today some time.
>> > >> > > > > > > cheers
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Mike
Drob <
>> > >> madrob@cloudera.com>
>> > >> > > > > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >> if you're going to tray that, here's
what you want to do
>> > >> > (assuming
>> > >> > > > > > command
>> > >> > > > > > >> line)
>> > >> > > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> git checkout CURATOR-167 # start
with the branch that
>> you
>> > are
>> > >> > > > changing
>> > >> > > > > > >> git rebase -i master # rebase the
current branch on top
>> of
>> > >> the
>> > >> > > given
>> > >> > > > > > >> branch
>> > >> > > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM,
Cameron McKenzie <
>> > >> > > > > > mckenzie.cam@gmail.com
>> > >> > > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > Scott,
>> > >> > > > > > >> > I've been using a similar approach
to Jordan given
>> that's
>> > >> what
>> > >> > > I'm
>> > >> > > > > > used
>> > >> > > > > > >> to,
>> > >> > > > > > >> > but I'm happy to try your approach.
I'm going to try
>> and
>> > >> fix
>> > >> > up
>> > >> > > > > > >> CURATOR-167
>> > >> > > > > > >> > as it will no longer cleanly
merge (it's been sitting
>> > >> there a
>> > >> > > > > while).
>> > >> > > > > > >> So, I
>> > >> > > > > > >> > should rebase master into the
CURATOR-167 branch?
>> > >> > > > > > >> > cheers
>> > >> > > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:55
AM, Scott Blum <
>> > >> > > > dragonsinth@apache.org
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > > LOL!  So sorry to hear
that.  Yeah, it's definitely
>> > >> possible
>> > >> > > to
>> > >> > > > > mess
>> > >> > > > > > >> > > things up badly.  If I'm
doing something
>> particularly
>> > >> risky,
>> > >> > > > I'll
>> > >> > > > > > just
>> > >> > > > > > >> > "git
>> > >> > > > > > >> > > branch original" before
I start, so as to leave a
>> > branch
>> > >> > > pointer
>> > >> > > > > at
>> > >> > > > > > my
>> > >> > > > > > >> > > start point as a safe recovery
if it goes south.  I
>> > also
>> > >> use
>> > >> > > > gitk
>> > >> > > > > to
>> > >> > > > > > >> > > visualize sometimes.
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > > Another major selling point
for rebase (-i) is that
>> > it's
>> > >> > > > *really*
>> > >> > > > > > >> hard to
>> > >> > > > > > >> > > merge the wrong branch.
 If the list of commits that
>> > >> comes
>> > >> > up
>> > >> > > > > > doesn't
>> > >> > > > > > >> > look
>> > >> > > > > > >> > > basically correct, you
probably did something
>> wrong--
>> > >> trying
>> > >> > > to
>> > >> > > > > > rebase
>> > >> > > > > > >> > onto
>> > >> > > > > > >> > > the wrong branch will give
you tons of commits,
>> most of
>> > >> > which
>> > >> > > > > aren't
>> > >> > > > > > >> > yours.
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > > I think what you've been
doing is fine, it's
>> definitely
>> > >> the
>> > >> > > > right
>> > >> > > > > > >> > approach
>> > >> > > > > > >> > > if you're doing a merge
strategy!  I've just ended
>> up
>> > >> > > > gravitating
>> > >> > > > > > to a
>> > >> > > > > > >> > > rebase strategy over the
years for the reasons I've
>> > >> > mentioned.
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at
12:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>> > >> > > > > > >> > > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> I’ll admit that rebase
terrifies me. I’ve f’d up
>> > several
>> > >> > > > projects
>> > >> > > > > > >> with
>> > >> > > > > > >> > it
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> so I can’t even type
the letters without breaking
>> > into a
>> > >> > > sweat.
>> > >> > > > > > "git
>> > >> > > > > > >> > rebase
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> -i” is a lot safer,
though. Here’s what I’ve been
>> > doing
>> > >> -
>> > >> > let
>> > >> > > > me
>> > >> > > > > > >> know if
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> it’s OK. For branches
that are off of CURATOR-3.0,
>> I
>> > >> never
>> > >> > > > merge
>> > >> > > > > > >> > master. I
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> only merge CURATOR-3.0:
“git merge CURATOR-3.0”. In
>> > >> fact,
>> > >> > > > should
>> > >> > > > > we
>> > >> > > > > > >> > have a
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> branch naming scheme
to enforce this?
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> -Jordan
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> On August 24, 2015
at 11:30:50 AM, Scott Blum (
>> > >> > > > > > >> dragonsinth@apache.org)
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> Correct. When I say
"main" branch vs. "feature"
>> > branch I
>> > >> > just
>> > >> > > > > mean
>> > >> > > > > > >> the
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> stable branch everyone
is working against (3.0 or
>> > >> master)
>> > >> > > vs. a
>> > >> > > > > > >> feature
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> branch where you're
actively working.
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> You'll get to a point
in development where you'll
>> > think
>> > >> > "Hey,
>> > >> > > > > there
>> > >> > > > > > >> are
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> changes on the main
branch I'm working against
>> that I
>> > >> > really
>> > >> > > > need
>> > >> > > > > > to
>> > >> > > > > > >> > pull
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> into my feature branch."
At that point
>> (particularly
>> > if
>> > >> you
>> > >> > > > have
>> > >> > > > > an
>> > >> > > > > > >> svn
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> background) you'll
be tempted to merge the main
>> branch
>> > >> into
>> > >> > > > your
>> > >> > > > > > >> feature
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> branch. I would suggest
not doing that, as it makes
>> > the
>> > >> > > history
>> > >> > > > > > very
>> > >> > > > > > >> > muddy
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> to follow. Instead,
my workflow is usually more
>> like
>> > >> this:
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> Suppose I'm working
on CURATOR-218. It was
>> originally
>> > >> > > branched
>> > >> > > > > off
>> > >> > > > > > >> 3.0,
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> and I want to pull
in new changes.
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> git remote update
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> git rebase -i origin/CURATOR-3.0
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> This pulls up an editor
that gives me the list of
>> > >> commits
>> > >> > to
>> > >> > > > > > rebase.
>> > >> > > > > > >> I
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> would typically exit
out of the editor to at this
>> > point
>> > >> to
>> > >> > > > accept
>> > >> > > > > > the
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> commit list, but if
I'm so inclined, I'll do things
>> > like
>> > >> > > > reorder
>> > >> > > > > > the
>> > >> > > > > > >> > list,
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> or squash commits like
like "wip" or "minor
>> reformat"
>> > >> into
>> > >> > a
>> > >> > > > more
>> > >> > > > > > >> > curated
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> set of logical commits.
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> Once you exit the editor,
git goes through and
>> applies
>> > >> each
>> > >> > > > > commit,
>> > >> > > > > > >> one
>> > >> > > > > > >> > at
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> a time, to the head
of the target branch. It's like
>> > >> picking
>> > >> > > up
>> > >> > > > > your
>> > >> > > > > > >> > commit
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> chain and dumping it
at the end of the target
>> branch,
>> > >> as if
>> > >> > > all
>> > >> > > > > > your
>> > >> > > > > > >> > work
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> had been done against
what's now the head of that
>> > >> branch.
>> > >> > > > You'll
>> > >> > > > > > may
>> > >> > > > > > >> > have
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> to fix conflicts along
the way, but usually not
>> much
>> > >> more
>> > >> > > than
>> > >> > > > if
>> > >> > > > > > you
>> > >> > > > > > >> > did
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> it as a merge.
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> I'd encourage us to
try this out a couple times and
>> > get
>> > >> a
>> > >> > > feel
>> > >> > > > > for
>> > >> > > > > > >> the
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> rebase flow. It's a
little more to get your head
>> > around
>> > >> at
>> > >> > > > first,
>> > >> > > > > > but
>> > >> > > > > > >> > the
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> upside is you end up
with really easy to follow
>> commit
>> > >> > > > histories,
>> > >> > > > > > >> which
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> makes it way easier
to untangle problems later if
>> they
>> > >> crop
>> > >> > > up.
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015
at 12:17 PM, Jordan Zimmerman
>> <
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > Can you explain
this in detail? For me, I have
>> some
>> > >> > > features
>> > >> > > > > that
>> > >> > > > > > >> are
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > 3.0.0 based so
I’m treating CURATOR-3.0 as a
>> kind of
>> > >> > > master.
>> > >> > > > > The
>> > >> > > > > > >> true
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > “master” is
Curator 2.x only, right?
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > -Jordan
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > On August 24,
2015 at 11:10:08 AM, Scott Blum (
>> > >> > > > > > >> dragonsinth@apache.org
>> > >> > > > > > >> > )
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > BTW: I noticed
a couple of new commits
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > (ba4b5d8cb1f9733d3901b0b619528454d3dbf8c8
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > & 2343daf29388566b0efa0b0a2ad21574fb534a27)
where
>> > 3.0
>> > >> is
>> > >> > > > > getting
>> > >> > > > > > >> > merged
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > into feature branches.
Almost every project I've
>> > been
>> > >> on
>> > >> > we
>> > >> > > > > don't
>> > >> > > > > > >> tend
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> to
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > do that as it
leads to confusing history (this
>> isn't
>> > >> just
>> > >> > > > > > >> aesthetic,
>> > >> > > > > > >> > it
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > can
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > get harder for
tooling to figure out what
>> happened).
>> > >> If I
>> > >> > > > want
>> > >> > > > > to
>> > >> > > > > > >> pull
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > changes from the
main branch into my feature
>> > branch, I
>> > >> > > would
>> > >> > > > > > >> typically
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > *rebase* my feature
branch against the main
>> branch.
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 24,
2015 at 12:05 PM, Scott Blum <
>> > >> > > > > > >> dragonsinth@apache.org>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > Yeah, 217
& 161 were the first two big things
>> in
>> > >> 3.0.
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > On Mon, Aug
24, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Jordan
>> Zimmerman
>> > <
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> OK -
Also, is CURATOR-161 complete? The issue
>> is
>> > >> still
>> > >> > > > open
>> > >> > > > > in
>> > >> > > > > > >> > Jira.
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> On August
24, 2015 at 12:47:21 AM, Cameron
>> > >> McKenzie (
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com)
wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> Yes,
I merged it in last week some time.
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> On Mon,
Aug 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jordan
>> > Zimmerman <
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com>
wrote:
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
Scott, did CURATOR-217 get merged into the
>> new
>> > >> > > > > CURATOR-3.0?
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
-Jordan
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > > >> > >
>> > >> > > > > > >> >
>> > >> > > > > > >>
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > > >
>> > >> > > > > >
>> > >> > > > >
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message